END OF THE VERNAL TERM.Hatch vs. Hatch and Haight vs. Haight, Divorces—Buys Lectured. Ccrrespohitcnco Tribune ] v^n.al, tlt;nh March 4 —in ih. Districtcourt th. Lm in- , of fhe tc-rn T..,s ,-|0Up as fdHowKrAuriila 13. Hitch vp. Jereniluh Hatch, no cow' liming been heretofore heard tnrj in ken under advljw mt-nt, the divorce was grained, giving plaintiff (he custody or minor children and tln property Judgment alt;lt; m.iscj rorG H. 11u.|ght vs. Olive J ITolghL This cstise u-iis hi ard on the motion of defendant for t-up|j.'montur decree The court grant'd the U'lndunt the custody of ilm minor child (which hud not ben I mention^ at all !„ n,.- decroe heretofore enter.,and ordered plaintiff to pav de-! f- iHhmt Jjj In (.revisions mid mam y! forthwith ;mri *12.50 within Mxty dnvs i p-mdinr tlw furihrr aoilon of the lt;og'ri.!.'n JohM'“jn appointed gunrdi-per«oti and e-ante of 'LloydJP 0r ’ «*»•! wn requested'toproperty and apply the mom S tothe prop -r *upport of mother and lt;1,11.1i ho I.ii'ip presented showed that tin- dr-!.'lt;■ ,r.\ ',inU 7h,i(i ?iav® not «uMclent foodRvini o e T l,l.0,r ' •,nifort, and nr.«'r. J u_. “hamJoned slaughter-home I HO rnl.int Is not a very TVc‘ll-lo*florh^va* . ??yy «“ wUI ,ry a,,d **eo ihut Mn*y rto nr t rT V a tv ■» - —• ... i • _ . _ • . _